Skip to content

Agenda item

Grade 2 Listing of the Former John Lewis Building

Report of the Head of Property Services

Decision:

5.1

To consider the implications and options following the designation by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport of the former Cole Brothers store in Barkers Pool as a Grade II listed building.

 

 

5.2

RESOLVED:-

 

1.    That based on the contents of this report and most particularly the legal advice contained in the Closed Appendix the Council does not take any formal action in respect of the decision by the Secretary of State for Digital Culture Media and Sport to list the building Grade II;

2.    That the process to secure a developer continues as planned and that a further report is brought back to this Committee in January 2023 for selection of the preferred developer;

3.    That the selection criteria and scoring matrix be prepared by the Chief Property Officer and agreed with the Chair of this Committee before being issued to developers;

4.    Approval is given for officers to produce a detailed planning brief and options for redevelopment, retention, interventions and potential for partial demolition in consultation with Historic England to inform future redevelopment;

5.    Approval is given for officers to approach Historic England, Arts Council of England, Heritage Lottery Fund, Architectural Heritage Fund, other Government Agencies and SYMCA to explore the potential for funding support in the event that there is a viability gap as a result of the listing of the building; and

6.    Approval is given for officers to approach Historic England to query elements of the listing description and the weight that they have given to their significance.

 

 

5.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

5.3.1

Whilst the decision by the Secretary of State to the list the building is not

what was anticipated, does not accord with the public consultation

undertaken by SCC on the future of the site which supported demolition

and replacement and has caused some controversy and anger locally, it

has provided the certainty required to take forward redevelopment of the

building.

 

 

5.3.2

Requesting a review of the decision will, while either process is running,

reintroduce uncertainty and could be costly. There is also a risk that

developers currently interested in the scheme, despite its listed status,

could withdraw.

 

5.3.3

It is therefore recommended that in order to secure a future for the

building as soon as possible that the proposed recommendations are

approved.

 

 

5.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

5.4.1

The alternative options are set out in the body of the report. The legal

remedies available to the Council are dealt with in the Closed Appendix

to this report.

 

Minutes:

5.1

The Committee received a report to consider the implications and options following the designation by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport of the former Cole Brothers store in Barkers Pool as a Grade II listed building.

 

 

5.2

RESOLVED: That the public and press be excluded from the meeting before further discussion takes place on the grounds that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, if those persons were present, there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information as described in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.

 

5.3

The Director of Financial and Commercial services presented details of the financial implications and the Committee discussed the exempt information contained in the appendix to the report.

 

5.4

At this stage in the proceedings, the meeting was re-opened to the public and press.

 

 

5.5

RESOLVED:-

 

1.    That based on the contents of this report and most particularly the legal advice contained in the Closed Appendix the Council does not take any formal action in respect of the decision by the Secretary of State for Digital Culture Media and Sport to list the building Grade II;

2.    That the process to secure a developer continues as planned and that a further report is brought back to this Committee in January 2023 for selection of the preferred developer;

3.    That the selection criteria and scoring matrix be prepared by the Chief Property Officer and agreed with the Chair of this Committee before being issued to developers;

4.    Approval is given for officers to produce a detailed planning brief and options for redevelopment, retention, interventions and potential for partial demolition in consultation with Historic England to inform future redevelopment;

5.    Approval is given for officers to approach Historic England, Arts Council of England, Heritage Lottery Fund, Architectural Heritage Fund, other Government Agencies and SYMCA to explore the potential for funding support in the event that there is a viability gap as a result of the listing of the building; and

6.    Approval is given for officers to approach Historic England to query elements of the listing description and the weight that they have given to their significance.

 

 

5.6

Reasons for Decision

 

 

5.6.1

Whilst the decision by the Secretary of State to the list the building is not what was anticipated, does not accord with the public consultation undertaken by SCC on the future of the site which supported demolition and replacement and has caused some controversy and anger locally, it has provided the certainty required to take forward redevelopment of the building.

 

 

5.6.2

Requesting a review of the decision will, while either process is running, reintroduce uncertainty and could be costly. There is also a risk that developers currently interested in the scheme, despite its listed status, could withdraw.

 

5.6.3

It is therefore recommended that in order to secure a future for the building as soon as possible that the proposed recommendations are approved.

 

 

5.7

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

5.7.1

The alternative options are set out in the body of the report. The legal remedies available to the Council are dealt with in the Closed Appendix to this report.

 

 

(NOTE: The result of the vote on the resolution was FOR - 5 Members; AGAINST - 0 Members; ABSTENTIONS – 4 Members.)

 

Supporting documents: